viivvaa66 Posted July 29 Share Posted July 29 On 27/07/2024 at 20:44, Panto_Villan said: That's not what the ruling said. It said the President was immune from prosecution for anything done carrying out the constitutional role of his office. And ripping up the constitution isn't part of the President's role, so he wouldn't have immunity for doing that. (Apparently, he arguably would have immunity for sending the military in to kill the supreme court - but that's not really relevant. if we're at the point where the military is supporting Trump over the constitution and US government, laws don't matter any more.) You wouldn’t need all of the military to be on board with it, just a general to give the order, and some solders that are drilled to do as they are told. And since Supreme Court have given immunity for this, it isn’t against the constitution, it is now part of the power of the President, so the military do not have the choose between the President and the constitution. I understand that Democrats are freaked out about this, but I can’t understand why Republicans aren’t freaked out too, since Biden have those powers now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panto_Villan Posted July 30 Share Posted July 30 1 hour ago, viivvaa66 said: You wouldn’t need all of the military to be on board with it, just a general to give the order, and some solders that are drilled to do as they are told. And since Supreme Court have given immunity for this, it isn’t against the constitution, it is now part of the power of the President, so the military do not have the choose between the President and the constitution. I understand that Democrats are freaked out about this, but I can’t understand why Republicans aren’t freaked out too, since Biden have those powers now. Nah, it'd still be a crime for the military to execute the Supreme Court. Just because a soldier was given the order doesn't mean it's a legal order; e.g. it's not a legal order to murder a school full of children even if the President gives you a direct order to do so, and a soldier doing so could be prosecuted. The problem is if the military wants to do it, because the President has the power to pardon anyone he likes. So he could order the troops to kill anyone he wants, pardon the killers for their crime, and then he himself would be immune from prosecution for giving an illegal order due to the recent Supreme Court ruling. It'd just be a question of finding someone willing to do it, and there being a President willing to take such drastic action (and also it's reliant on the new Supreme Court not subsequently deciding that the previous ruling was erroneous). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
viivvaa66 Posted July 30 Share Posted July 30 9 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said: Nah, it'd still be a crime for the military to execute the Supreme Court. Just because a soldier was given the order doesn't mean it's a legal order; e.g. it's not a legal order to murder a school full of children even if the President gives you a direct order to do so, and a soldier doing so could be prosecuted. The problem is if the military wants to do it, because the President has the power to pardon anyone he likes. So he could order the troops to kill anyone he wants, pardon the killers for their crime, and then he himself would be immune from prosecution for giving an illegal order due to the recent Supreme Court ruling. It'd just be a question of finding someone willing to do it, and there being a President willing to take such drastic action (and also it's reliant on the new Supreme Court not subsequently deciding that the previous ruling was erroneous). If you can’t be prosecuted for an act, can that act be considered illegal? I would argue that the Supreme Court not only made the President immune to prosecution for his actions, but also legalised those actions. The Supreme Court did say in its ruling that the President could be prosecuted for non-official action while in office, making non-official actions illegal, while officials action would be legal. Since the sitting President gets to pick the new judges on the Supreme Court, there isn’t much hope that the new Supreme Court would disagree with the President. Killing the Supreme Court isn’t the only thing a President could do, Biden could introduce Martial Law and cancel the election and give himself a lifetime appointment as President. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nor-Cal Villan Posted July 30 Share Posted July 30 6 hours ago, TheAuthority said: Thiel is why we should eat the rich Krokus knew what they were talkin’ about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheAuthority Posted July 30 VT Supporter Share Posted July 30 1 hour ago, Nor-Cal Villan said: Krokus knew what they were talkin’ about I must admit I wasn't aware of them but how can the Swiss produce a heavy metal/hard rock band? WTF do the Swiss have to be angry about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted July 30 Share Posted July 30 2 hours ago, viivvaa66 said: If you can’t be prosecuted for an act, can that act be considered illegal? I would argue that the Supreme Court not only made the President immune to prosecution for his actions, but also legalised those actions. The Supreme Court did say in its ruling that the President could be prosecuted for non-official action while in office, making non-official actions illegal, while officials action would be legal. Since the sitting President gets to pick the new judges on the Supreme Court, there isn’t much hope that the new Supreme Court would disagree with the President. Killing the Supreme Court isn’t the only thing a President could do, Biden could introduce Martial Law and cancel the election and give himself a lifetime appointment as President. The Supreme Court ruling doesn’t give blanket immunity to any prosecution and despite all the partisan rhetoric at the moment, there is logic in the president being immune from prosecution for decisions they took acting in their official capacity as president. The president may well be required to make contentious decisions such as bombing or assassinating targets in the name of ‘national security’. They really should not be second guessing whether they are then going to be facing prosecution for their decisions at some point in the future. For example, Obama ordered the extrajudicial assassination of Osama Bin Laden. Without the protection of the office of President he could still be open to being prosecuted for this murder by an unsympathetic future government. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panto_Villan Posted July 30 Share Posted July 30 5 hours ago, viivvaa66 said: If you can’t be prosecuted for an act, can that act be considered illegal? I would argue that the Supreme Court not only made the President immune to prosecution for his actions, but also legalised those actions. The Supreme Court did say in its ruling that the President could be prosecuted for non-official action while in office, making non-official actions illegal, while officials action would be legal. Since the sitting President gets to pick the new judges on the Supreme Court, there isn’t much hope that the new Supreme Court would disagree with the President. Killing the Supreme Court isn’t the only thing a President could do, Biden could introduce Martial Law and cancel the election and give himself a lifetime appointment as President. Yeah, I think it’s still illegal if you can’t be prosecuted for it. I’m not a lawyer, but a crime would still be a crime if you couldn’t be prosecuted for it (due to the statute of limitations, or the jurisdiction of the court etc). I read an article from a law professor outlining the scenario I mentioned, where the military still needed pardons. Presidents needs Senate approval to get new judges on the Supreme Court, and I don’t think appointing yourself President for life is an “official” act either - so I don’t think that would be immune from prosecution either. This is semantics though, really. If the President is sending the military to kill political opponents or declare himself President for life, he’ll either immediately be removed from power as a result (and he’ll be punished even if they have to change the rules to do so), or he’ll have enough support to successfully become a dictator that doesn’t have to worry about any laws at all. The more likely scenario to occur is a President like Trump deploys the military against hostile protestors (eg something like BLM) and there’s a bloodbath, which he’s now immune from prosecution for. So not becoming a dictator, but being able to freely use force against the general population. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
viivvaa66 Posted July 30 Share Posted July 30 2 hours ago, LondonLax said: The Supreme Court ruling doesn’t give blanket immunity to any prosecution and despite all the partisan rhetoric at the moment, there is logic in the president being immune from prosecution for decisions they took acting in their official capacity as president. The president may well be required to make contentious decisions such as bombing or assassinating targets in the name of ‘national security’. They really should not be second guessing whether they are then going to be facing prosecution for their decisions at some point in the future. For example, Obama ordered the extrajudicial assassination of Osama Bin Laden. Without the protection of the office of President he could still be open to being prosecuted for this murder by an unsympathetic future government. Everything that is classified as official Presidential acts have been given immunity, but anything non-official has no immunity, so yes it isn’t a blanket immunity. Let’s say a President is selling pardons for cash. Pardons are an official Presidential act, and therefore the President is immune against prosecution for this. The selling part is non-official, but in a trial the jury is not allowed to know about the pardons, they can only know about the non-official acts, making the case just about the President receiving cash. This the part where even Republican judge Barrett thought the majority went too far. It is difficult to find a balance between letting honest and good presidents getting on with the job without the fear of later prosecution, but at the same time deterring presidents from doing illegal acts that would harm the nation. It’s clear that Supreme Court got this balance completely wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJonah Posted July 30 Share Posted July 30 3 hours ago, LondonLax said: The Supreme Court ruling doesn’t give blanket immunity to any prosecution and despite all the partisan rhetoric at the moment, there is logic in the president being immune from prosecution for decisions they took acting in their official capacity as president. The president may well be required to make contentious decisions such as bombing or assassinating targets in the name of ‘national security’. They really should not be second guessing whether they are then going to be facing prosecution for their decisions at some point in the future. For example, Obama ordered the extrajudicial assassination of Osama Bin Laden. Without the protection of the office of President he could still be open to being prosecuted for this murder by an unsympathetic future government. But it's only now, with Donald Trump, that this has had to be ruled on. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted July 30 Administrator Share Posted July 30 12 minutes ago, viivvaa66 said: Everything that is classified as official Presidential acts have been given immunity, but anything non-official has no immunity, so yes it isn’t a blanket immunity. But also that evidence cannot be requested about unofficial acts of a (former) president persuant to a conviction of that (former) president. Only congress can convict a president, and only while they are president. SCOTUS has made presidents into kings. So much for originalists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted July 30 VT Supporter Share Posted July 30 5 hours ago, TheAuthority said: I must admit I wasn't aware of them but how can the Swiss produce a heavy metal/hard rock band? WTF do the Swiss have to be angry about Cuckoo clocks. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panto_Villan Posted July 30 Share Posted July 30 46 minutes ago, DCJonah said: But it's only now, with Donald Trump, that this has had to be ruled on. To be fair, it's not just with Trump - it also protects Biden from the next administration bringing actions against him. Trump is obviously what sparked all this, but the ridiculous levels of polarisation in the US are a serious problem too. If Trump dropped dead tomorrow but the Republicans won the election, I think there'd still be plenty of Republicans who were keen try and settle scores with members of the previous administration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted July 30 Moderator Share Posted July 30 5 hours ago, TheAuthority said: I must admit I wasn't aware of them but how can the Swiss produce a heavy metal/hard rock band? WTF do the Swiss have to be angry about Where the cheese from the holes went 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnkarl Posted July 30 Share Posted July 30 (edited) 11 hours ago, DJBOB said: I think she might actually go Walz. Which would be nice in the sense that it would be the first time a Dem ticket did not have two lawyers on it in quite some time. I think Walz would be a good idea, I just don't see them picking a VP from a safe state. Minnesota is 10 points ahead for Harris. Walz is a bit like Kelly. Veteran, has real life credible experience from being a teacher, highly decorated and extremely normal. I think people just want normalcy and not the kind of lunacy that Trump brings, at least outside of his cult. I know centrist dads aren't that favourable among certain people in the UK but I feel that the US could definitely use one. What we are seeing though is that the dems have an awful lot of talent behind the president, no matter which way it goes. Edited July 30 by magnkarl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted July 30 VT Supporter Share Posted July 30 1 hour ago, magnkarl said: I think people just want normalcy and not the kind of lunacy that Trump brings, at least outside of his cult. I know centrist dads aren't that favourable among certain people in the UK but I feel that the US could definitely use one. Well, I'm pretty sure that was a major factor in the UK general election. Whether the U.S. is in any way comparable I simply don't know. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted July 30 Share Posted July 30 6 minutes ago, mjmooney said: Well, I'm pretty sure that was a major factor in the UK general election. Whether the U.S. is in any way comparable I simply don't know. There were a lot of parallels between the Trump and Boris Johnson regimes (to me at least). The UK strongly rejected a continuation of that… but the US seems to be more open to going back to what will undoubtedly be even more chaotic than last time should Trump win the election. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nor-Cal Villan Posted July 30 Share Posted July 30 10 hours ago, TheAuthority said: I must admit I wasn't aware of them but how can the Swiss produce a heavy metal/hard rock band? WTF do the Swiss have to be angry about They had a moment in the early 80s, I remember at least 3 songs getting solid MTV play (this, Screaming in the Night, and a cover of Ballroom Blitz) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted July 30 Share Posted July 30 Maybe the weather in the coming week will give voters something to ponder on? Press play, bottom left. https://www.windy.com/-Temperature-temp?temp,36.704,-97.207,4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted July 30 Moderator Share Posted July 30 20 minutes ago, Xann said: Maybe the weather in the coming week will give voters something to ponder on? Press play, bottom left. https://www.windy.com/-Temperature-temp?temp,36.704,-97.207,4 I’d vote for that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted July 30 Share Posted July 30 5 minutes ago, blandy said: I’d vote for that America being cleansed by fire? Bloody French taking the piss out the good book. Make for the Mount Of Olives! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts